Federal judge clears county in immigration lawsuit

Monday

Jan 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit claiming the Maury County Sheriff's Department exceeded its authority and violated a Columbia man's rights after he was arrested for a traffic violation in January 2011, then transported to the custody of immigration officials in Nashville.

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit claiming the Maury County Sheriff’s Department exceeded its authority and violated a Columbia man’s rights after he was arrested for a traffic violation in January 2011, then transported to the custody of immigration officials in Nashville.

Chief U.S. District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. entered an order of summary judgment Friday on behalf of Maury County, dismissing the lawsuit brought in January 2012 by Victor Manuel Ramirez-Mendoza. Haynes’ order was accompanied by a 14-page memorandum exploring the constitutional issues raised by Ramirez-Mendoza and explaining why the case would not go to trial.

The lawsuit originally also claimed that General Sessions Judge Bobby Sands had violated Ramirez-Mendoza’s constitutional rights by commenting in court on his ethnic origins. It alleged that during a public hearing, Sands said “it’ll be better to send him to Mexico, because he’s costing us a lot of money here.”

But Sands was dropped from the lawsuit last July after court audio and transcripts showed he had made no such comment. “The court records show that the court was more than fair and considerate, and I was stunned by the lawsuit,” Sands said at the time. “In my opinion, it was highly professionally irresponsible.”

Elliott Ozment, a Nashville immigration lawyer who represented Ramirez-Mendoza, also claimed in a January 2012, interview with The Daily Herald that immigration authorities had never issued a formal detainer for the sheriff’s department to hold Ramirez-Mendoza for federal investigation of his immigrant status.

However, the judge’s opinion specifically referred to a detainer that was issued in the case, found that the sheriff’s department was mandated to carry it out and had not exceeded its authority in doing so.

The civil case arose from Ramirez-Mendoza’s arrest on Jan. 19, 2011, for driving on a suspended license. The next day, according to court records, the sheriff’s department received notice from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office in Nashville to detain Ramirez-Mendoza so it could determine whether he was subject to deportation.

Ramirez-Mendoza was held without bond in the Maury County Jail for nine days — during which Sands dropped the traffic charge against him — until a sheriff’s deputy drove him to the ICE offices and left him in custody there.

In dismissing the lawsuit, Haynes found that instead of exceeding its authority by assisting ICE, the sheriff’s department was required by recent case law to act as it did. He also ruled that the department did not exceed federal time limits by holding Ramirez-Mendoza for federal agents after the traffic charge was dismissed, and so did not violate his constitutional right to due process.

Haynes dismissed the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning it is forever dead and cannot be refiled.

Ozment said Monday that while “we obviously disagree with the judge, we are evaluating to see if we want to appeal at this time.

“The reason why we think this is important is we don’t believe the federal government has a right to place an unfunded mandate on the citizens of Maury County,” Ozment said, referring to the detainers under which the sheriff’s department has transported prisoners like Ramirez-Mendoza to ICE in Nashville. That raises 10th Amendment issues, he said.

But when asked if he was representing Ramirez-Mendoza or the citizens of Maury County, Ozment said, “I am not speaking on behalf of the citizens of Maury County, but I’d be asking my officials why they aren’t arguing this case.”

Ozment acknowledged that 10th Amendment issues were not raised in the Ramirez-Mendoza case, but he brought them up Monday because “we’re talking about a possible appeal.”

Sheriff Enoch George said he was “very pleased” by Haynes’s order, “and thankful the court system has seen there was nothing to this and chose to dismiss the case.

“This has been an ongoing thing for some while, and it seems they have found us to be not guilty of what we were charged with,” George continued. “I certainly agree, because I’m not in this position to take advantage of people. I’m just doing my job.”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.